And BeatrixFan... Maybe I'm just too used with our royal house over here un Sweden, where the king and the queen just stand there waving, looking pretty, to realise that Elizabeth has more power than that over in the UK.
I agree and I was going to say that I thought Sweden had a monarchy that was really just a promotional tool but I didn't want to offend anyone. I think that there are lots of things that are raised when we're talking about a Monarchy surviving that really show how ill informed people are on the subject. For example, in an argument with one republican, he told me that the Monarchy brought inequality with the honours system. What he failed to recognise was that China, the USSR and even Iraq in the Saddam days, gave out medals by the bucket load. Every country employs certain things as part of it's national identity.
Next Star mentioned parades. Well, didn't we see light parades in Nazi Germany and more recently in North Korea to celebrate their first nuclear test? Parades and Medals are not what make a Monarchy but they become vital to the survival of a monarchy like the Swedish model which is really only seen to be attending parades and handing out medals. In Britain, our Queen does alot more than King Carl Gustav does and so the parades and medals are not grounds for overhauling the system. They are minor issues that some people are unhappy with but as I've said, whether you have a communist state, a dictatorship, a monarchy or a republic, you'll always have medals, parades, a Head of State and some kind of class system whether it's unofficial or recognised by the state.
Let's look at North Korea and Britain. Both have a Head of State. In Britain we have Queen Elizabeth II and in North Korea they have Kim Jong-Il. Put politics aside and strip both down to the bare essentials and they are in fact - the same. North Korea is a socialist republic with a President but above him, is the Eternal President of the Republic - a former dead President who is accorded God-like status and is held in the same regard as our Queen is. You then have the Chairman of the National Defence Commission, the President of the Supreme People's Assembly and the Premier - all of whom hold certain powers that in Britain are held by the Queen who devolves them to ministers in the same way that these three men devolve their powers to their ministers.
North Korea has parades to show it's cultural achievements and to basically display what North Korea is to the world and to please the North Korean people. Great Britain has exactly the same thing. In Great Britain we have the Garter, in North Korea they have the Order of Kim Il-Sung. Kimg Jong-Il lives in a Palace. Queen Elizabeth lives in a Palace. Both carry out their duties and both recieve money from the tax-payers. So, whether living in a socialist republic or a monarchy, there are some things that will always be the same. Just as the Emperor of Japan lives in the Edo Palace, George Bush lives at the White House.
Now, what we - the people - decide is whether we want our Head of State to be elected or born into the role and the only way we can logically decide that is to look at the past and at the precedent set by our previous Heads of State. Mikhail Gorbachev eventually lost the support of his people and they rebelled against him and the USSR began to fall as the people made a decision on just how they wanted their Head of State to be selected and how they wanted their Head of State to behave. In Britain, we saw the work and life of George VI and made the decision that the Queen was the best person to follow her father as a Head of State. If we hadn't, there would have been the same feelings as in the USSR and people would have rebelled against the Queen in the same way the Russians rebelled against Mikhail Gorbachev.
The question is - when does the opening for debate come and realistically, the times people in Britain start to talk about the monarchy and it's role are when there are changes. So, when the Queen dies, there will be discussions about the future of the Monarchy and yes, cost will be mentioned. But it's deeper than cost and whether the Royals look pretty. It'll be about whether a non-elected hereditary system is the best for Britain at that time. It's also about what type of Government we have. They won't decide whether to dispense with the monarchy or not, they'll decide whether to have a referendum on the subject based on what the people put forward as their feelings on the matter. And if the majority want a Presidential system, it's a Presidential system we'll have but it would very ignorant to think that a Presidential system will end the things we see our Queen doing.
A President would probably live in Buckingham Palace. A President would give out medals as recognition and as reward. A President might cost less in the short term but in the long term, the cost of supporting every past President and First Lady would become quite heavy. A President would still have to sign bills into law, a President would have to do the job of the Queen and we'd need someone else to do the job of the Prime Minister unless we're prepared to put enormous responsibility with one man or one woman.
You see, Britain has been lucky in that we've always had the monarchy as a safety net. It isn't about parades or tiaras, it's about constitutional affairs. We've never had a radical Government - the closest we got was with Margaret Thatcher and that was a time when we saw the Queen showing, even though it filtered through from other sources, her displeasure at some of the actions Thatcher was taking. Now, if Thatcher had become Hitler-esque and dictatorial, the Queen would sack her, dissolve Parliament and we'd have elections where the people could decide if they wanted Thatcher or if they wanted someone else. In a Presidential system, we wouldn't have that safety net. It'd take a military coup or a huge revolution to shift or depose the leader we didn't want.
The British Monarchy isn't perfect but it's one of the best there is. Look at Thailand if you want a shining example. The Prime Minister was ousted in a coup and the people didn't look to the politicians but looked to the King. That doesn't happen here because the constitutional balance of power is quite soft and we're different in our way of dealing with things. But I've no doubt that if the Queen took a more political role, the reaction to some kind of coup here would be similar. Look to the permanent figure in the nation's recent history. In Thailand, the people know that coups happen so they look to the King who has seen it all before and because of his 60 years of service to his country, and his seeing 60 years of political development, he can give informed advice which a President simply couldn't offer.
It's about weighing up the pros and cons of a republic over a monarchy. And for that matter, why a republic? Who can tell what other system we might adopt. Malaysia chose to elect a monarch every 5 years. It works for them the duties of state are exercised well and stability follows. Whatever system we choose will have to offer stability and at the moment, nothing offers that stability like the monarchy. It could do more but it isn't just a group of celebrities in sashes and tiaras - it's a family, an institution that is always there and whilst we might not like some of the members of today's monarchy, the principles of monarchy remain the same. Personalities come and go but the actual system remains the same and whilst it works for Britain both socially, politically and economically - which at the moment it does - it'll stay afloat.
There. Rant over.
so If I have grossly misinterpreted your statement can I ask you to again express what it was, exactly, you meant? I want to understand your post the way you intended it to be understood and not leave it open for misinterpretation which is not fair on you.
